It was in the embers of the unprecedented death and destruction of World War I, that the Allied powers at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 established the ‘League of Nations’ – the United Nations version 1.0 – a global organization for peace that many educated people around the world today have never heard of; barely 100 years later.The League of Nations was headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and began functioning on 15 November 1920 when its 41 members states gathered for the opening of its first Assembly session. At its peak, the League had as many as 60 members; a large majority of the world’s states at the time. The League of Nation’s ‘Covenant’ was opened to signature by “Any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony … provided that it shall give effective guarantees of its sincere intention to observe its international obligations”.

Just like the United Nations (UN), that rose like a phoenix from the ashes of the unprecedented death and destruction of World War II, the League included a Council, Assembly and Secretariat. Unlike today’s UN however, voting in both the Council and Assembly was to be unanimous in UN 1.0: each member was to have a ‘veto’. As such, our transition to UN 2.0 involved the removal of this ‘power of veto’ from the UN Assembly: officially, the veto still exists in the UN Security Council today. Also unlike the UN, whose membership is only open to “peace-loving States”, the League was as just mentioned, open to “Any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony”: for which reason it was a League of ‘Nations’ – not a League of ‘States’.

The permanent members of the League Council were, as always, the victors of the most recent World War. In the case of UN 1.0, this was to be Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States. Unlike UN 2.0 however, the USA never took up its seat in the 1.0 Council. According to its own official ‘Office of the Historian’, the USA abstained from joining the new organization owing to opposition to “Article 10 of the Treaty, which dealt with collective security… This article, opponents argued, ceded the war powers of the U.S. Government to the League’s Council”: the US government instead wished to maintain a free hand on its “war powers”.

The League of Nations nonetheless achieved some very significant successes before its collapse, including the: 1921 conventions on the freedom of transit and international waterways; 1922 ‘Nansen Passport’ for refugees; 1924 Declaration of the Rights of the Child; 1925 Geneva Protocol forbidding the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons in war; as well as the 1926 Slavery Convention. Its demise was not in fact owing to a lack of successes, but instead to the unwillingness of its members to defend the League Covenant. In the words of Winston Churchill:

The League did not fail because of its principles or conceptions. It failed because those principles were deserted by those states which brought it into being, because the governments of those states feared to face the facts and act while time remained.

The beginning of the end for the League of Nations was the 18 September 1931 invasion and occupation of the Chinese region of Manchuria, by the Japanese. Despite the immediate calls for economic sanctions against Japan by League members, it was widely understood that such sanctions would not be supported by either the USA or the USSR: they would serve no useful purpose at all. Although the Assembly eventually demanded the return of Manchuria to Chinese sovereignty in February 1933, these demands were rejected by Japan – absent corresponding enforcement action – and Japan withdrew from the League the following month. Soon after, Germany also withdrew from the League.

Should one attempt to compare the 1931 invasion of China by Japan – a permanent member of the League Council – with the 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia – a permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC) – what stands out in all of the 11th ‘Emergency Special Session’ UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions on this invasion, is that once again, no authorization or call for sanctions against the invading permanent member can be found anywhere. Of course, sanctions have since been applied against Russia – completely – outside of the framework of UN 2.0, but this has done more to weaken the prestige of the UN than to bolster it: exactly what was seen towards the end of UN 1.0.

A second mortal blow was delivered to the League by the 3 October 1935 invasion of Ethiopia by Mussolini’s Italy. Once again there were immediate calls by League members for the imposition of economic sanctions, and indeed these were soon imposed to considerable effect. However, for reasons lost in the murky depths of state diplomacy, the British and French governments soon after changed course to push a settlement that not only led to the end of sanctions against Italy, but also to the complete takeover by Italy of Ethiopia: which it annexed in May 1936.

At the risk of sounding flippant, should one also attempt to compare the 1936 annexation of Ethiopia by a European power to Israel’s relentless annexation of Palestinian lands (referred to by the USA as “Not helpful”), and to review the corresponding resolutions of the UNGA’s 10th Emergency Special Session – dedicated solely to Israel since April 1997– what one remarks once again is the complete failure of the Assembly to authorize and demand sanctions against the belligerent State: yet any sanctions that might eventually imposed that are not first authorized by the world body, are of dubious legality, which itself acts as a brake against their imposition by peace-loving states.

Further on the topic of sanctions, be very wary of those that continue to parrot the ‘talking point’ that the UNGA does not have the power to authorize sanctions under the UN 2.0 Charter, despite it having already done so on many occasions: the legal precedent now set in concrete. The first such authorization was given in UN Assembly resolution 1899 which – having Condemned “the Government of the Republic of South Africa for its persistent refusal … in applying the principles of the Charter of the United Nations” – Urged “all States which have not yet done so …, separately or collectively”, to “Refrain forthwith from supplying in any manner or form any arms or military equipment to South Africa”, and to “Refrain also from supplying in any manner or form any petroleum or petroleum products to South Africa”. As such, the UNGA authorized military and economic sanctions against apartheid South Africa as far back as 1963, eventually leading to its downfall.

The terminal blow to the League was of course dealt by Germany, starting with its 12 March 1938 invasion of Austria. This invasion famously came to be known as the ‘Anschluss’: a German word signifying the “Connection” of Austria to Germany. This Anschluss – which was shortly followed by the march of German boots into Czechoslovakia, and then into Poland – was likewise not tackled by the League. Indeed, by the time the German army did invade Poland, no one bothered to raise that issue with the League at all: the 1.0 Covenant had already become a dead letter. Although I don’t know how to say “Connection” –Anschluss– in Mandarin, it doesn’t take a tremendous imagination to foresee what the ‘Anschluss-moment’ might be for UN 2.0.

In all of the UNGA’s Emergency Special Session meetings since April 1997, we are yet to see a single Assembly resolution calling for –authorizing –sanctions against either Israel or Russia. Yet, certainly by now, the UNGA should have at least called for the expulsion of all representatives of both states, and for the imposition of wide-ranging diplomatic, economic and military sanctions – by all UN members – until such a time as these states return to full compliance with the provisions of the UN Charter.

One such provision of the Charter can be found in Article 25: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter”. Just such a decision was recently adopted by the UNSC in its Resolution 2728 of 25 March 2024, concerning Israel’s ongoing assault against Palestine: “Reiterating its demand that all parties comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law”, (1) “Demands an immediate ceasefire … by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire”, and (2) “Emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip … in line with international humanitarian law”.

If Israel – a State of approximately 7.5 million (should we exclude the 21% of Palestinian-Israeli citizens) – cannot be forced to comply with this latest UNSC Resolution yet again – to respect its obligations under the UN Charter for as long as it is still a UN Member – then what possible hope would the UN have of imposing its will upon the likes of China – a permanent/veto-wielding Member of the UNSC – the day that UN 2.0 is faced with its own ‘Anschluss-moment’ over Taiwan? The UN 2.0 Charter sadly must also be declared a dead letter today, the UNGA apparently being neither willing nor able to bring a State of only 7.5 million – heavily dependent on international trade – into compliance with its obligations towards the UNGA: the very same Assembly whose (not-yet-revoked) resolutions give Israel it’s legal justification to exist under international law.

The President of France, Emmanuel Macron, recently suggested that French troops could be sent to Ukraine to help fight against the Russian invasion: a suggestion portrayed in the media as radical. What is most interesting about Macron’s suggestion is not only that it is very far from radical, but that it was absolutely foreseen by the UN 2.0 Charter of 1945: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”.

That said, before us getting to the point of French troops officially engaging Russian fighters inside Ukrainian territory, France should first – unlike its 1936 diplomatic machinations in favour of Mussolini’s Italy – be pushing for the authorization– by the UNGA – of the full range of sanctions available against both Russia and Israel: leading to the immediate expulsion of all their embassy staff from each-and-every peace-loving state on the planet, and making the point that the UN Charter reads the same regardless of the belligerent state involved or the colour of its victims. In April 1946, at the final Assembly session of UN 1.0, the head of the French delegation declared:

It was not the League which failed. It was not its principles which were found wanting. It was the nations which neglected it. It was the Governments which abandoned it.

All peace-loving governments must take immediate and drastic measures to save UN 2.0. There is no reason whatsoever to believe there will ever be a UN 3.0.

---

Cameron Hunt is the author of Pax UNita – A novel solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

---